Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 34 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
State will handle Good Sam case
County still to prosecute juvenile part of the case
Published Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office will prosecute the adults who allegedly took part in abuse at the Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea, Freeborn County Attorney Craig Nelson announced Friday.
Nelson said the decision came after consulting with Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Hasbargen about the case.
“It’s clear to me that I am a person from and of this community,” he said. “Obviously I know and am friends with family members of the alleged victims. I know and am acquaintances of family members of the alleged perpetrators. I certainly am friends and have close friendships with people who are employees of Good Samaritan or who have been former employees of Good Samaritan.”
Because of this, he said, he thinks an objective, third party outside of the community would be better situated to make the final prosecutorial decisions for the adults in the case.
The Freeborn County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the involved juveniles because the Attorney General’s Office does not handle juvenile cases, he said.
Craig Nelson
That means the two teenage girls involved in the alleged abuse who were already adults at the time of the incidents will be prosecuted by the state. The other two who were 17 — and in the eyes of the law still juveniles — will be prosecuted locally. All the girls are now 18 or older.
The details of abuse allegations surfaced after the release of a Minnesota Department of Health report Aug. 28 that concluded four teenage girls were involved in verbal, sexual and emotional abuse of residents at the nursing home in Albert Lea.
The Albert Lea Police Department conducted a separate investigation of the case but has not yet released its report.
Nelson said he also made the decision to allow the Attorney General’s Office to take over prosecuting the two adults because he thought there had been enough information about the case forwarded by the local media.
“The fact is no matter what decisions I make in this case, I will be criticized on all sides,” Nelson said. “Given that fact, while I’m certainly elected to do my job, I also want the community to know I’m impartial and working to do my job in the fairest fashion.”
He said it is likely Hasbargen will be the one to prosecute the alleged adult suspects. He and Hasbargen will continue to consult with each other about the case, he said, but ultimately she will be the one to call the shots when it comes to the adults
Nelson announced earlier this week that the Attorney General’s Office offered its help in the case and that he was “happy to take their assistance.”
“I think it’s unwise for a small town and a small county attorney not to use all the assets out there,” he said last Monday.
The four teenagers identified in reports are no longer employed at the nursing home.
Comments
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why can't the ones that were 17 be charged as adults? They are sex offenders if they are found guilty, at that age they are old enough to know better. Some people that are 13, 16, etc. are charged as adults, why not this case?
Posted by crysandclay (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i agree-they knew what they were doing. if they were deemed "adult" enough to care for our elderly population, they should be held accountable.
Posted by sshafer20 (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like money at work here. The article says that they were children when they did this. I still think Nelson should give up the juveniles also as he states that he knows both sides of the familys involved. Who's to say the victims will not get equal representation. Children tend to get plea bargined out. Who will be impartial as a jury for this? Looks like a venue will be changed.
Posted by speakup (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The "children" involved should never have been allowed to care for these people if they can not be held accountable for their actions. This is just so sad. I pray that the families of the victims will not stand for any of this to be swept under the rug. I just hope the victims' human rights will not be violated again because mommy and daddy knew who to call. Demand that justice prevails! All of these girls should be prosecuted regardless of whether they are 18. situations like this are why we have the option to try them as adults, they committed VERY adult acts, and should be dealt with accordingly. Let a jury decide if they are innocent or guilty-- It should not be up to one person to decide-- DO THE RIGHT THING
Posted by dj8887 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 2:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you serious! Only 2 of the 4 will be charged as adults. I had a relative in this facility a few years back and I know if they had been assaulted, the accusers names would be plastered all over the city of Albert Lea and all other communities. It just makes me sick that this has gone on long enough and these individual(s) are already working in other nursing facilities. I think the facilities that have hired them, should be asking the question: Were you involved with the assaulting of individuals at the Good Sam. Center? I know I would be so upset, knowing they have the gaul to go and work with other elderly or even young ones. Whether young or old, these individuals need to be tried as adults, because again if it was my family member, their names would be plastered. I am so sorry for those residents that this happened to and for their families to sit back and wait for the outcome of this disgusting ordeal.
Posted by dj8887 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 2:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now,the question arises: What would have happened if one or any of these individuals were of another race? Would their names have been withheld from the public? I can honestly say that I have lived in this area all my life and I am of a minority group. I would have to answer the question with a big YES! THEIR NAMES WOULD BE PUBLICIZED. But, I have noticed lately how the media, doesn't seem to withhold any other (races), names from being printed or reported on the tv news. If the indivduals were of another race, I don't think it would take but a few days, until their names would have been released by the media.
Posted by jam (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Why can't the ones that were 17 be charged as adults?" -- Probably because the law does not define them as adults. How's that? Frankly, this is a good move, because it will take away all the sniping and concerns that would take place if the the adults were prosecuted locally.
Posted by rellikdruid (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They were caring for the elderly and all 4 should be tried as adults. What they did is sick and wrong. All 4 knew what they were doing and should be charged accordingly. 2 should not get special treatment just for being 17 at the time. The county attorney sounds as though he is too close to properly conduct a trial even for the 2 that were 17.
Posted by icare2 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There we go with the "race" issue again!! How do you determine who is a minority in this town? You people need to stop feeling sorry for yourselves and work for a living like most people need to do! I believe race is not even a factor in any of this case so stop your pity party.
Posted by Snapshot (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How do you know what race these girls are if they haven't released their names yet?
I also agree that Good Sam shouldn't have hired "children" if they can not be held accountable or tried as an adult. Perhaps in the this case Good Sam should be held accountable for the girls under 18?
Posted by dj8887 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For your info icare2, myself and my all my family members have been taxpayers from as long as I can remember.
And no I am not playing the pity party game. I am just stating the facts. Lets put it this way, this area and society has sterotyped us as a minority group. Also, there are many of us that have gone on to college to get a degree, and paid for it by ourselves. So pleaseeeeeeeeee, I am not looking for pity.
Posted by familymember (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone know if there have been any minors prosecuted as adults before in Freeborn County? If anyone has any knowledge of this I would like to know. If there has how can they not charge these girls also as adults. I am a family member and it just makes me sick that all 4 will not be prosecuted as adults!! If they are all 18 now they must have been just a few months from their 18th birthday when this happened. The only information that we have been getting on the case is what has been in the paper. I have called the county attorneys office many times & all they tell me is it is ongoing. They will not take a name to call back to give us any updates, they just keep telling us to call back. We have not been given any names of the parties involved. Ok, I get they do not want to give out names until charges are filed but if 2 are charged as juveniles we will ever find out their identity or the progress in their case? Is it too much to ask to be kept informed of the progress of the case? I am glad the Attorney Generals office offered their assistance, just was hoping it would be for all 4.
Posted by icare2 (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ok everyone is all bent out of shape because 2 of the girls are/were under the age of 18. let me ask you this,if they were caught drinking and would soon be 21 (few months) should the law let them off the hook because they are soon to be legal age? you guys are getting carried away with your views of what the law should and shouldn't do. i would dare to bet if you knew the names then everyone would be happy. is it really the crime or the gossip about it that intrigues you?
Posted by speakup (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 3:25 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by tmfresh (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think it is a case of minority. If you recall in July when the rock hit a lady in the face at the 3rd of July parade the kids that did that were of a minority and their names were never published either. I truly think that is why these girls names are not revealed. Do I think they should be? You bet I do. If everyone who, young or old, was called out because of a crime I think people would think twice about breaking the law or doing something as sick as these girls did.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If he has too many conflicts with the adults because it is a small town, one would think he has the same conflicts with those under 18. Odd.
Posted by lmr2427 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this Craig Nelson is "FRIENDS" with both sides im afraid that he cannot be impartial. I believe he should have NO part of it. It should be passed to someone else. It makes me really wonder how GOOD OF FRIENDS he is with them if he's willing to throw a friendship away to prosecute to which one or the other side wont be happy with the outcome. If he was really the FRIEND he claims to be he would back out and let someone else handle this case. That would be impartial. I look at it like this- WITH FRIENDS LIKE THAT WHO NEEDS ENEMIES? My mother lives in a nursing home twenty minutes from Albert Lea and if this happened there and to her i wouldnt leave that facility till someone hand cuffed me and hauled me away.
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
icareto, It's the CRIME!! How would you feel if it were your relative that is a victim of this awful crime. And excuse me, they do print the names of some of the underage drinkers. The names I could care less about, it's getting justice done for these helpless victims. May God Bless everyone of them.
Posted by lmr2427 (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TODAY'S QUOTE
"In many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."
- John Adams
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on September 21, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wingo -
They print the names of underage drinkers who are over 18 but under 21.
Posted by ellen67 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
standing and applauding reader101!
Posted by jcm6 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is a crock that they are only charging 2 as adults. if they are old enough to have a job at Good Samaritan and care for the vulnerable adults they are old enough to be charged as adults. This whole case makes me fear ever having to put a loved one in a nursing home.
I feel horrible for the residents that went through this abuse and their families. and now to find out that 2 of the girls will not get charged as adults??? I just can't imagine what they must be going through right now. My heart goes out to them.
Posted by cooper06 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
standing and applauding with you ellen67, for reader101!
Posted by wishfulthinking (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not fair at all for only two to be charged as adults. If all four were old enough and supposedly responsible enough to attain a job then they are responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions. It does sound to me like Mr. Nelson's friends are one of the younger girl’s families. I really feel for him, I wonder if these girls ever thought that it would be more than the victims, the victim's family and their own family that they would disappoint and disillusion. Mr. Nelson needs to step aside totally to be fair, we all can see that.
Posted by demo1960 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Albert Lea is a small community. If Craig Nelson can claim he knows or is acquainted with parties of any criminal or civil matter for reason to ask for assistance ,then why do we require his services as the county attorney. He is supposed to interpret and apply the law as written. In other words,look at the criminal complaint and using your education and experience as an attorney find the appropriate charges. That is what you were elected to do and that is what you are paid to do. You have assistants to help you, don't you Mr. Nelson. The community of Albert Lea should expect the county attorney to be able to perform the requirements of his job in a biased and fair manner and if not, please resign from your position because there is no way that every case you charge and take to trial will involve persons that you are not acquainted with. And if you were concerned about this issue in this case, why were you not requestion assistance from the state instead of the state contacting you?
Posted by winonagirl36 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am very disappointed that only 2 of the girls will be charged as adults. They need to take responsibility for their actions. From what I have read, all 4 of them were at equal fault for these horrible actions. Why do 2 of them get to be let off the hook? As to the analogy between this and the drinking shortly before turning 21, I would say that this situation is a little worse than underage drinking. I don't think that analogy is very balanced.
Posted by dj8887 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with demo1960. When this all goes to trial, the jury that gets chosen have to be unfamiluar with the case. Prior to this, when your called in for jury duty, you are asked the question, if you know these individuals or have a conflict with any of the individuals involved, then your pretty much let go from being a juror. So I guess this should be the same for Mr Nelson.
Posted by albertlea1 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."
What this means, in plain terms, is that constitutionally you cannot be executed, imprisoned, or fined without the proper course of justice taking place. As you found out, due process, itself, is not defined in the constitution, but is universally recognized as meaning what we term as "a fair trial."
I don't know any of the individuals involved but this is what the laws states. This is a serious situation and it has to be addressed with caution because of the nature of the crime. As a community we need to stop and realize the impact of these comments - they could be hurting the family of the victims.
God Bless the victims and their families.
Posted by Reader8 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nelson needs to step aside, now.
Posted by albertlea1 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
READER101: I was talking about the nursing home victims and their families - not the girls and their families!!!
My father is in a nursing home and has Alzheimers - he is not at Good Sam. I fully understand and agree with full punishment. That is not what I was saying........NOT AT ALL!!!
Posted by OldTrojan (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Craig Nelson needs to immediately resign. The underage terrorists need to be tried as adults. The administration at the nursing home needs to be terminated. The community as a whole needs to enter a six month period of morning and anguish for allowing such a sinful event to happen in Freeborn County.
Posted by sshafer20 (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would believe our comments about this case have already told the Attorney's of the 2 alleged adult suspects that they would find Freeborn county residents hostile and not able to obtain a clear and impatial veiw to be selected for jury duty. We have given them the reason to ask for a change of Venue.
Posted by tkk07 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 4:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope and pray that when Nelson is up for re election, that someone runs against him and he loses. Enough of him and his crap. Its time the residents of this county stand up for ourselves and stop taking this kind of stuff from our elected officials and I mean ALL OF THEM!
Posted by demo1960 (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Makes me wonder how many other low profile cases Mr. Nelson has declined to prosecute because he is personally acquainted with victims or alleged perpetrators. As far as Freeborn county being hostile (comment by sshafer20), if anyone has read the police report and statements by the subjects involved I think anyone should be concerned just at what these girls admitted to doing. It would be nice if just once someone would take responsibility for what they did and show some remorse. As far as Mr. Nelson is concerned, I think the citizens of Freeborn county have reason to be concerned. And before he gets on his high horse he should remember who pays his salary and who he was elected to represent.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)